Resistance to Public Policies Assisting the Poor
Property owners have often challenged programs designed to support vulnerable populations, arguing these measures constitute unconstitutional takings of private property for public use. Despite a growing crisis of affordable housing shortages, increasing poverty, and homelessness, state courts have generally supported the efforts of state and local governments to enact policies protecting vulnerable groups from harsh economic conditions.
Examples of Protective Policies
- Eviction moratoriums implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic
- State programs requiring hospitals to provide care to indigent patients
These policies aim to safeguard at-risk populations but frequently generate strong opposition from property owners. In response, many property owners initiate lawsuits against government entities, seeking to overturn these policies.
Legal Challenges and Court Responses
Most lawsuits contesting these policies invoke state or federal takings clauses. The federal takings clause, found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, protects private property rights by mandating just compensation when the government takes property for public use. Similarly, nearly every state constitution contains a takings provision.
Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. [case details] serves as an example of such legal disputes.
Despite these challenges, courts have largely dismissed these claims, upholding state and local governments’ authority to enforce policies that support vulnerable communities.
Author's summary: Courts generally uphold government actions protecting vulnerable populations against property owners' legal challenges invoking takings clauses.